[codeonfire]

I thought managers would give up on talking about "microservices" about 2 years ago I thought they would latch onto "blockchain" and "crypto." The are still talking about "microservices" but just mean that they want each team to have their own hardware and communicate over the network. Look, this stuff is three decades old at least. When someone says "microservices" I know they are a clueless idiot manager. They can't explain what they are talking about in terms of build, deployment, versioning, networking, processes, etc. They try to enforce mistakes that explode performance. They say "monolith bad." The can't really say anything beyond that because they are faking it.

Don't like monoliths? here's a "microservice architecture" for you, Java servlet API, circa 1997. Everyone can package their micro-service into a WAR file and deploy it to a service environment. That's right, Companies were doing this shit in the 90's. It probably amazes these same people to know there were servers and computer networks in the 1980's as well. Http was not even the first popular protocol of its kind.

What I hate are these managers who pretend they know what they are talking about saying, "microservices", but they are fucking faking it every step of the way.

[codeonfire]

Oh, and to answer OP's question, no microservices are absolute shit for startups. You want all your code in the same address space so there is zero communication overhead between different parts of the code. Hosting small services all over the fucking place was only due to small hardware in the past. Today, we can get 128 core machines with multi-terabytes of RAM if it is needed. It becomes a problem of how do we deploy code independently in small units. Well, any platform that can hot swap code does just that.